A report published by the European Commission Joint Research Committee claims that music web piracy does not harm legitimate sales.

The Institute for Prospective Technological Studies examined the online habits of 16,000 Europeans.

They also found that freely streamed music provided a small boost to sales figures.

The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) said the research was "flawed and misleading".

"It seems that the majority of the music that is consumed illegally by the individuals in our sample would not have been purchased if illegal downloading websites were not available to them," wrote the researchers in their report, Digital Music Consumption on the Internet: Evidence from Clickstream Data.

"Although there is trespassing of private property rights (copyrights), there is unlikely to be much harm done on digital music revenues," they added.

Holy Christ, common sense prevailed. Maybe now some RIAA and MPAA people will recognize that a lot of pirated material is stuff that was not going to be purchased in the first place, and that plenty of people actually purchase some of the stuff they pirate that they'd never have known about or seen/listened to and found that they liked.

Instead, let's count every single downloaded copy of everything as lost revenue. You know, I've illegally downloaded some material literally 7-8 times over the past 15 years. Things I've deleted or lost due to hardware failure and had to grab again, etc. I totally would have purchased those things 7 or 8 times had I not been able to pirate it! I feel so guilty over all the software developers and musicians I've singlehandedly put out of business over the years. The RIAA should just execute me.

A report published by the European Commission Joint Research Committee claims that music web piracy does not harm legitimate sales.

The Institute for Prospective Technological Studies examined the online habits of 16,000 Europeans.

They also found that freely streamed music provided a small boost to sales figures.

The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) said the research was "flawed and misleading".

"It seems that the majority of the music that is consumed illegally by the individuals in our sample would not have been purchased if illegal downloading websites were not available to them," wrote the researchers in their report, Digital Music Consumption on the Internet: Evidence from Clickstream Data.

"Although there is trespassing of private property rights (copyrights), there is unlikely to be much harm done on digital music revenues," they added.

While revenues are not harmed, there are still people in the world that believe it is wrong to take something that is not yours.

There are also thieves/burglars that justify taking things because the things that are stolen will be replaced by insurance, so where's the harm.

“A society that gets rid of all its troublemakers goes downhill.” ― Robert A. Heinlein

RolandDeschain wrote:I was trying to remember who that was after I read your post, Zeb. I can't recall. He was super-righteous about it, though. I don't suppose whoever it was cares to pipe up in here?

Pleased to pipe up.

It is still wrong to take something that isn't yours, but continue to justify it however you like.

“A society that gets rid of all its troublemakers goes downhill.” ― Robert A. Heinlein

This is an interesting conundrum. While theft of property is wrong, the greatest bane to an artist's survival is not theft but obscurity, making this quite oxymoronic in nature. What makes this an even more interesting a discussion is Amazon's Prime borrowing program. The reader gets something for free, and the artist still gets paid. In my case, I get paid more for people borrowing my novella than by people buying it. By a considerable margin.

"The ultimate number is W's, and that’s what matters in Santa Clara. As such, Jed York does not own the 49ers; Russell Wilson does." - Paul Gutierrez

In human history the 1900s were a bit of an anomaly for music. Before that musicians made music by actually performing it. The really good ones often had patrons, allowing them to focus on it and allowing the patron bragging rights of being the first to hear the music (or in some cases the ONLY person to hear it).

Records, CDs, 8 tracks etc changed that for about a hundred years but I get the sense this is basically now going to be "corrected".. musicians are going to have to accept the fact that information is spread for free, easily.. and what is "theirs" is their actual performance.

I am surpirsed that artists continue to release music first.. I would guess that fairly soon top artists will reverse the pattern now.. a tour of live concerts with new content will be done before studio quality versions of songs are ever released. It would already work.. if top acts announced a tour of exclusive content of new songs you cant hear anywhere except their concert..people would go crazy for it.

Later recordings can be sold, with the inevitable copying.

Im not even sure if "theft" is quite the word. There should be a new word.. as they say "imagine if someone stole your car..but..you still had your car".

“If somebody thinks they're a hedgehog, presumably you just give them a mirror and a few pictures of hedgehogs and tell them to sort it out for themselves.”

It is still wrong to take something that isn't yours, but continue to justify it however you like.

You know how virtually any other product in the world can be returned within 10 days or 30 days for a full refund for any reason? Maybe if people could do that, they'd feel more secure in purchasing music. There is no "meh, I don't like this new album by X artist despite liking their previous 3 albums, *clicks get refund*"; the excuse given is that it allows the purchaser to copy the music, then return the product, thereby obtaining it for free illegally. It's the most ridiculous excuse I can think of, my freaking grandma can figure out how to pirate music by asking how on Google. Perhaps some sort of backing of the product in any way, shape, or form after purchase might make people more likely to purchase.

...Naw, that can't be true. It must be me trying to justify my pirating of music, since I'm such an evil thief.

Vetamur wrote:In human history the 1900s were a bit of an anomaly for music. Before that musicians made music by actually performing it. The really good ones often had patrons, allowing them to focus on it and allowing the patron bragging rights of being the first to hear the music (or in some cases the ONLY person to hear it).

Records, CDs, 8 tracks etc changed that for about a hundred years but I get the sense this is basically now going to be "corrected".. musicians are going to have to accept the fact that information is spread for free, easily.. and what is "theirs" is their actual performance.

I am surpirsed that artists continue to release music first.. I would guess that fairly soon top artists will reverse the pattern now.. a tour of live concerts with new content will be done before studio quality versions of songs are ever released. It would already work.. if top acts announced a tour of exclusive content of new songs you cant hear anywhere except their concert..people would go crazy for it.

Later recordings can be sold, with the inevitable copying.

Im not even sure if "theft" is quite the word. There should be a new word.. as they say "imagine if someone stole your car..but..you still had your car".

I agree with that prognosis. It's bound to happen, as the industry will be forced to adapt if it wants to survive.

The car analogy is sorta apt, but not really. It decreases (possibly - as that's the key to this whole discussion) the ability to sell your car to potential buyers.

"The ultimate number is W's, and that’s what matters in Santa Clara. As such, Jed York does not own the 49ers; Russell Wilson does." - Paul Gutierrez

It is still wrong to take something that isn't yours, but continue to justify it however you like.

You know how virtually any other product in the world can be returned within 10 days or 30 days for a full refund for any reason? Maybe if people could do that, they'd feel more secure in purchasing music. There is no "meh, I don't like this new album by X artist despite liking their previous 3 albums, *clicks get refund*"; the excuse given is that it allows the purchaser to copy the music, then return the product, thereby obtaining it for free illegally. It's the most ridiculous excuse I can think of, my freaking grandma can figure out how to pirate music by asking how on Google. Perhaps some sort of backing of the product in any way, shape, or form after purchase might make people more likely to purchase.

...Naw, that can't be true. It must be me trying to justify my pirating of music, since I'm such an evil thief.

So, does this carry over to piracy of software, or anything that can be copied?

“A society that gets rid of all its troublemakers goes downhill.” ― Robert A. Heinlein

twisted_steel2 wrote:I always check out(pirate) music before I buy it, if it's good, I have no issue going to iTunes and buying it. Or a cd.... which I still do once or twice a year! If it's not good, I don't buy.

No way in the world I'd buy music without being 100% sure I want it.

So, technology gives me a very nice copier/printer. In fact it copies everything precisely to the finest detail.

I "copy" one of your $20 bills and return the original to you.

No harm, no foul, right?

“A society that gets rid of all its troublemakers goes downhill.” ― Robert A. Heinlein

twisted_steel2 wrote:I always check out(pirate) music before I buy it, if it's good, I have no issue going to iTunes and buying it. Or a cd.... which I still do once or twice a year! If it's not good, I don't buy.

No way in the world I'd buy music without being 100% sure I want it.

So, technology gives me a very nice copier/printer. In fact it copies everything precisely to the finest detail.

I "copy" one of your $20 bills and return the original to you.

No harm, no foul, right?

Not as long as you don't circulate it into the economy.

But good luck finding the right paper to print copies if that twenty onto if you did intend to spend it.

DTexHawk wrote:So, technology gives me a very nice copier/printer. In fact it copies everything precisely to the finest detail.

I "copy" one of your $20 bills and return the original to you.

No harm, no foul, right?

Not as long as you don't circulate it into the economy.

But good luck finding the right paper to print copies if that twenty onto if you did intend to spend it.

And why can't I circulate it?

Oh, because it devalues everyone else's $20 bill.

So, a copy of a copy, of a copy of a song doesn't devalue the original?

Alright, everyone; DTex won the argument. From here on out, there will never be sanctioned copies of anything. Stephen King's new novel will only have the original released, with bidding on it starting at $1,000,000; because printing hardcover copies devalues the original, and printing mass trade paperback copies really devalues the original. Copies of things must be put to a stop!

Also, burn all used book sales. The profits don't go to the author, and it devalues their original works. Hell, we need to ban the sale of any used item, period; can't have the original creators losing out on potential profit. Don't you dare to try sell your car to anyone when you want a new one, guys!

RolandDeschain wrote:I was trying to remember who that was after I read your post, Zeb. I can't recall. He was super-righteous about it, though. I don't suppose whoever it was cares to pipe up in here?

Pleased to pipe up.

It is still wrong to take something that isn't yours, but continue to justify it however you like.

There was another guy though, not you, that took the discussion very seriously and seemed to disappear after it was over. Wish I could remember his screen name.

Btw downloading music isn't "taking" something. There's no thing. It's just data. 1's & 0's. Even if you pay for it (which you totally should).

Look, the pay you have held back from the workers who mowed your fields cries out against you,and the cries of the reapers have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. (James 5:4)

Wolves are withdrawing, once again, in order to evolve. The record industry is in trouble, and the panic in the business has resulted in severe depression for musicians worldwide. We have new offerings, both music and a medium, but first:

Politics.

Much has been said, on topics like crowd funding, file sharing, the death of the physical format as we know it. Answers are ambiguous, but one thing is for sure: musicians are required to consider the direct financial implications of their activities far more closely today.

The top-heavy machinery, with their CEOs and managers and sales and marketing departments, is obviously a pricey one. When their expenses have been covered most of the money is gone, leaving the artists in the lurch. It seems a gross injustice, especially in a time where their manner of operation has become such an anachronism.

We can no longer carry the weight of this museum, so we have once again (first time was when we established our own imprint, Jester) decided to take the matter into our own hands, in a way more autonomous than before. We've been prudent enough to make sure we own our own material – since Nattens Madrigal that is – which is not at all a given in this shady business, and which in itself has given us disadvantages when it comes to advances, percentages and PR in the past.

The last five years the insidious disease that is the music business has really reared its ugly head. If you want to have your album manufactured, distributed and possibly promoted today it almost goes without saying that the label/licensee/distributor should have an unheard of allowance. But even more morose: a similar (disproportionate) cut off your digital sales and streaming income is expected. That's after the bite of the Apple.

It's a sin. They don't do any actual work for this money. Certain suits have started to demand cuts from the live earnings of their bands/artists as a premise for signing them. Our hearts sincerely go out to the younger generation of recording artists, as we've seen literal slave-contracts signed by the "up and coming".

It's tragic really. Killed in infancy.

If only the Richard Bransons out there would take their humanitarian initiatives to their own artists first, is a thought. The promise of good promotion does not bring bread on the table.

And while we're having a stab at the system: fuck iTunes, and Spotify et al., which is the same old story over again – oversized monsters, getting rich and mighty, while it takes years and lots of legwork for something, if anything, to come back to those who made the music i.e. their product in the first place.

In selling out, ULVER has always opted for the lesser evils, and we've been in the groove with decent folks, VME and Kscope in particular. But given the context, it has to be acknowledged: we've made quite a few external people and/or companies a lot of money over the years.

A look behind the scenes:

We played for a full house at the Norwegian National Opera, and since it was a big set-up, tickets were expensive. The opera folks made a killing, our managers at the time made a solid chunk of dough and the ensuing DVD/Blu-ray did very well.

ULVER? Same old song. In the red.

Our surplus that night went to pay the film crew, since the budget advance we'd got to make the film didn't cover it. Besides, management had gross percentage paws in that purse too. Oh, the irony. To top it off, and after we were finally done, we thought, we got hit with a DVD authoring/mastering charge close to 5K (GBP), which seems to have put royalties on permanent hold.

Now, for being the ones who were actually on stage, had rehearsed and prepared for the gig, with all that entails, spent months afterwards making said DVD, editing, mixing, composing liner notes etc., we find it pertinent to question our negative honorarium as the typical token. We are very proud of the concert and following product. But much to our dismay, pride doesn't seem to bring bread on the table either.

Neither does patience – virtue notwithstanding.

We hold heart over gold, truly, but we have dedicated our entire adult lives – 20 years now – to this band. We are getting older and more responsible and we also need to know that we can pay some bills and feed our kids at the end of the day. No one has worked more or harder for ULVER than ... well, ULVER.

The harsh reality is that too many prey on us – in a hostile environment – we have no other choice than to rise up.

We have no beef with "curious cats" who tune in on unauthorized channels, download torrents etc. Such undertakings serve a similar purpose to that of labels and distributors – from which we see such a minuscule yield anyway. Forget about it.

But it is naturally a problem when even genuine fans no longer bother to pay for the work of their favorite artists.

Hear what Neil Hamburger, via Mark Eitzel, has to say on the matter:

We encourage all conscientious music fans to buy their music direct from artists whenever that is possible, in the future. It will help more than you know.

Some might argue that we are not big enough, and thus have no right to life ... and while we are clearly not Radiohead or Björk, that would be off the mark. Allow us to swag a little: ULVER sell respectable quantities, and is in digital numbers, according to current Last.fm statistics, # 4 out of Norway, superseded only by A-ha, Dimmu Borgir and Röyksopp.

If we'd gotten a cent a stream. We can dream.

Point is, we know there are resources – that things can be amended – so long as we can establish a modus operandi where we, the artisans, get more of the total take. We invest a lot in our productions, both in the studio and live, to make every next step better, bigger, more interesting. Tirelessly digging our own grave.

But there surely has to be a way to ensure both quality of life and the arts at the same time?

Which brings us up to speed: we can now, via new technology, sell our music directly to you.

ULVER with TROMSØ CHAMBER ORCHESTRA: Messe I.X–VI.X

This one will be released by us, here – in the ether – next year, putting it up for download only via our new app and related online channels.

That's right, dear friends of ULVER: since many people carry smartphones these days we have, with generous help from Effektor aka Rune Michaelsen, developed an iPhone/iPad and Android app which we are offering for the price of $ 1.99, a sum we hope you can live with. This is firstly to cover development costs and hosting, but is also an experiment of sorts. If you download it will reinforce our faith and also give us a bit of revenue for further development.

More info on Messe I.X–VI.X – formats and pre-ordering etc. – will follow shortly. In the meantime, have a look at some of the material from the concert in Tromsø, which forms the basis of the album:

Live at Roadburn is also around the corner. Roadburn Records will release a limited edition vinyl in one thousand copies next year, while we will release it digitally from our new webstore – store.jester-records.com – linked directly to from the app and our webpages. Currently it is (of course) not allowed to sell music directly from within the application, but laws are being twisted so that hopefully soon artists can sell direct, and not be cutpursed by iTunes, Amazon, and other Digimons.

Certain of our albums will – depending on how much good or ill will there is – still be caught up in exclusivity clauses and contracts, but we hope to make most of our history of music available within the next year, as well as all future endeavors, and exclusive material.

We encourage all of you, once again, to buy digital directly from our webstore and not through iTunes etc. The quality is better, we get the money and we are cheap: EUR 5 per album, EUR 3 per ep. We have also collected some covers and curiosities available for EUR 2 download from the store until Christmas: "Another brick in the wall (part 1)", cover from Mojo presents: The Wall Re-Built! (Mojo magazine cover CD 2009)."Be drunk", from Die Künstlichen Paradiese – Charles Baudelaire (Hörbuch Hamburg/Radio Bremen 2011)."In the kingdom of the blind the one-eyed are kings", cover from The lotus eaters – tribute to Dead Can Dance (Black Lotus Records 2004)."Strange ways", cover from Gods of thunder – a Norwegian tribute to Kiss (Voices Music Publishing 2005)."The night before", discarded Lee Hazlewood cover (rough 2002)."Thieves in the temple", cover from Shockadelica – 50th anniversary tribute to the artist known as Prince (C+C Records 2008)."Uno", "Avhør", "Brødre", "Brødre rev.", "Flukt", "Gravferd" and "David til ulvene", from Uno – original motion picture soundtrack (Bonnier Amigo Music Group 2004).These songs are included for free in the app, along with videos and images etc. All in one place. We hope and think the app will be a convenient thing, making stuff better both for us and for you from now on. It will be possible for us to communicate and share our creations more efficiently and directly with you. God forbid, living in each other's pockets.

Imagine, we could send you a push notification once a song is done.

There are so many of you over the years who have written to us – more than we've had the capacity to answer – telling us, in all manner of ways, what our work has meant. We sincerely thank you, all, and hope that you will stick around and follow us into the age of the quick response code.

We will of course keep manufacturing limited vinyl and miscellaneous beauty products for those of you who enjoy the tactile experience, and which can be ordered and shipped directly from us, or our close and/or equitable partners.

To avoid any possible misunderstandings: we might well release across-the-board CD editions with third parties, in order to suit our aims. But this will be in retrospect, after having first shared the music in a way and form attending to our needs.

To drive the point home: we'd probably improve our production greatly if it was not for these constant goddamn monetary problems. That is why we have also, albeit reluctantly, put up a general donations account on our website. If you believe ULVER is creditable. Names of benefactors will be publicised, with due respect, unless otherwise desired.

However, we will not pay our respect to the vultures. For they are our past.

So, a copy of a copy, of a copy of a song doesn't devalue the original?

Alright, everyone; DTex won the argument. From here on out, there will never be sanctioned copies of anything. Stephen King's new novel will only have the original released, with bidding on it starting at $1,000,000; because printing hardcover copies devalues the original, and printing mass trade paperback copies really devalues the original. Copies of things must be put to a stop!

Also, burn all used book sales. The profits don't go to the author, and it devalues their original works. Hell, we need to ban the sale of any used item, period; can't have the original creators losing out on potential profit. Don't you dare to try sell your car to anyone when you want a new one, guys!

See, this is where you become "stupid".

If Stephen King elected to write, publish, and print a single book, he (the artist) can name the price he wants for that book. The market will then determine if that is the correct price if there is a buyer for that book.

If he instead prints 1 million copies, that devalues the book and he wouldn't be able to charge the same amount. But the option should be in the hands of the artist/owner of the book/song/product.

Your used book analogy is stupid as well. The author made his profit on the original sale of the single book. If it is sold as "used" to another party, there is still only that 1 book going to the new owner. It doesn't remain in the original purchasers hands.

“A society that gets rid of all its troublemakers goes downhill.” ― Robert A. Heinlein

DTexHawk wrote:Your used book analogy is stupid as well. The author made his profit on the original sale of the single book. If it is sold as "used" to another party, there is still only that 1 book going to the new owner. It doesn't remain in the original purchasers hands.

By that logic if I buy the CD and upload it for my friends to download it's cool then, because the artist already got paid. Did you ever record tapes for friends, or burn CD's for them?

It's obvious the frustration they have with the industry. Do you think they would feel the same way about their "fans" if only 60% or so of their fans bought music directly from them, and the other 40% pirated it, and it still wasn't enough?

Switching to the football "industry", 50% of revenues goes to the players. The rest goes to venues, administration, equipment, and all sorts of expenses, and of course; owners. Of the 50% that goes to players, the majority of that goes to "star" players, with a little going to the "non-star" players. Probably very similar to the music industry, where lesser-known's don't get paid well. There are too many of them.

It's tough to be at the top in any industry.

“A society that gets rid of all its troublemakers goes downhill.” ― Robert A. Heinlein

DTexHawk wrote:Your used book analogy is stupid as well. The author made his profit on the original sale of the single book. If it is sold as "used" to another party, there is still only that 1 book going to the new owner. It doesn't remain in the original purchasers hands.

By that logic if I buy the CD and upload it for my friends to download it's cool then, because the artist already got paid. Did you ever record tapes for friends, or burn CD's for them?

No, you're using that Oklahoma math.

With my logic, there is only a single book. With your scenario, there is no longer just a single song, there are 2 copies of a song.

Simple economics will tell you that if you double the availability of a product, the value of that product will decrease.

“A society that gets rid of all its troublemakers goes downhill.” ― Robert A. Heinlein

DTex, will you ever put some blame where it belongs; with the supply chain and those in charge of it? Look how long it took for legal sales of MP3s to come around. I pirated music for more than a decade prior to easy and widespread availability of legal music online existed. I've purchased more music legally in the last 3 years than I did in my entire life up through the late 90s, and that includes the time before you could really get MP3s online. I didn't buy very many CDs because you got 1-2 good songs and a bunch of crap otherwise from most artists. From when it was realistically and easily feasible to sell music online on a large scale, to when it actually happened, is like a 15 to 20-year span of time, with the RIAA fighting it every step of the way.

Why are you blaming the consumers for this? A lot of music piracy was CAUSED by the RIAA in the first place, and their refusal to change with the times until absolutely forced to. The MPAA has not been as bad, but they've been bad enough; and they still charge ridiculous premiums for their virtual copies of movies to buy, considering the lack of distribution and manufacturing involved. Half the HD movies are cheaper to buy a Blu-ray version of than it is to buy it in HD online, legitimately; and the Blu-ray copy is better quality, and they profit well from that including manufacturing, distribution, and advertising costs.

The world thrives on making as many things conveniently available to the consumer as possible. Would you be satisfied if you could only buy milk in one container size from one source in your region? Hell to the no. You expect to be able to buy several different sizes at countless local sources, be they convenience stores, grocery stores, etc. Why do you give the RIAA and MPAA a pass on this, historically? Why is it up to the consumer to drag them kicking and screaming into the online sunlight of the 21st century, and let them get away with lamenting over the change they should have done of their own accord 15 years earlier?

I buy lots of movies and music, so I feel entitled to download the ones I don't feel like paying for. Especially since the stuff I REALLY like I go buy it afterward anyways. Is it wrong? Honestly, I don't care if it is or isn't. They charge ridiculous prices so really I don't feel sorry for them. They also spoon feed you regurgitated crap and then have the gall to insist you pay top dollar for it. So giving the finger to the industry a little here and there, is pretty much a good thing.

With my logic, there is only a single book. With your scenario, there is no longer just a single song, there are 2 copies of a song.

Simple economics will tell you that if you double the availability of a product, the value of that product will decrease.

No shit Sherlock? Wow, I guess I couldn't have figured out simple economics like that...thanks. I made the mistake of thinking you actually used a good example for your case, not a single book theory.

When is a book ever released by itself these days? Your example, while pertinent to the point you were trying to make, had nothing to do with the topic at hand. Music isn't released as a one copy thing, as you well know. You still didn't answer my other question though.

MLOhawks wrote:I buy lots of movies and music, so I feel entitled to download the ones I don't feel like paying for. Especially since the stuff I REALLY like I go buy it afterward anyways. Is it wrong? Honestly, I don't care if it is or isn't. They charge ridiculous prices so really I don't feel sorry for them. They also spoon feed you regurgitated crap and then have the gall to insist you pay top dollar for it. So giving the finger to the industry a little here and there, is pretty much a good thing.

Its the industry that is the problem not piracy, many artists (while not embracing the idea) shrug their shoulders and chalk it up to free advertising.

I have a friend in a band signed to a label (an artist friendly one at that) and he showed me the stack of 20-50 cent royalty checks he gets every month. Why should the artist get 20 cents of every 20$ cd sold? Bands have this false idea that "getting signed" is pinnacle of your music career its more like thanks for the work...now bend over and by the way you don't even own the rights to your own songs

We live in a day and age where record labels are no longer needed, its like letting the US Government market and sell your merchandise.......find your own distro, fold your own sleeves, hell burn your own cd's, run your own website, why rely on an aging bunch of never was coke heads to handle your business for you? Would you rather make 5 bucks a cd doing it yourself or 15 cents knowing you have your own label handling your affairs for you.

This bit was most telling coming from people who are broke

"We have no beef with "curious cats" who tune in on unauthorized channels, download torrents etc. Such undertakings serve a similar purpose to that of labels and distributors – from which we see such a minuscule yield anyway. Forget about it."

RolandDeschain wrote:DTex, will you ever put some blame where it belongs; with the supply chain and those in charge of it? Look how long it took for legal sales of MP3s to come around. I pirated music for more than a decade prior to easy and widespread availability of legal music online existed. I've purchased more music legally in the last 3 years than I did in my entire life up through the late 90s, and that includes the time before you could really get MP3s online. I didn't buy very many CDs because you got 1-2 good songs and a bunch of crap otherwise from most artists. From when it was realistically and easily feasible to sell music online on a large scale, to when it actually happened, is like a 15 to 20-year span of time, with the RIAA fighting it every step of the way.

Why are you blaming the consumers for this? A lot of music piracy was CAUSED by the RIAA in the first place, and their refusal to change with the times until absolutely forced to. The MPAA has not been as bad, but they've been bad enough; and they still charge ridiculous premiums for their virtual copies of movies to buy, considering the lack of distribution and manufacturing involved. Half the HD movies are cheaper to buy a Blu-ray version of than it is to buy it in HD online, legitimately; and the Blu-ray copy is better quality, and they profit well from that including manufacturing, distribution, and advertising costs.

The world thrives on making as many things conveniently available to the consumer as possible. Would you be satisfied if you could only buy milk in one container size from one source in your region? Hell to the no. You expect to be able to buy several different sizes at countless local sources, be they convenience stores, grocery stores, etc. Why do you give the RIAA and MPAA a pass on this, historically? Why is it up to the consumer to drag them kicking and screaming into the online sunlight of the 21st century, and let them get away with lamenting over the change they should have done of their own accord 15 years earlier?

Give me a friggin' break.

Absolutely the system needs updating, but just because you don't like the way things are done doesn't allow you to take something by your own method. I don't like the way car dealers sell cars at different prices to different customers based on the customers skill at negotiating. That doesn't give me the right to take their property/vehicle.

I don't get it when people claim that because something is priced "ridiculously high" that consumers can somehow skirt that and that makes it legitimate to take.

I don't think your business/job/career would like it if consumers of your product/service were getting access to it either for free or by some other method that cuts you out.

“A society that gets rid of all its troublemakers goes downhill.” ― Robert A. Heinlein

No, it doesn't make it right to steal something, but there is a lot to be said for creating environments that foster crimes of opportunity and necessity. I use "necessity" here in the sense not that books, movies, and music are necessities per se, but rather because if someone lacks the funds to purchase something legally, the motivation becomes the same, whether they're lifting a movie or groceries for the family.

It is not the industries' fault people are stealing artistic media, but there is some onus on them when they create an environment that produces unnecessary theft and then react negatively when it happens. Kind of like parking a brand new car with the windows rolled down and a bunch of goodies in the seat in a bad Detroit neighborhood. Are you to be held accountable for what happens to the car and goodies? Absolutely not. Should you understand you kinda brought it on yourself by your own actions? Yep.

"The ultimate number is W's, and that’s what matters in Santa Clara. As such, Jed York does not own the 49ers; Russell Wilson does." - Paul Gutierrez

DTex, online HD distribution of films costs almost nothing compared to their physical media counterparts. You don't think that if the cost of a product is reduced by 20% or 25% that most of that reduction should not be passed on to the consumer? Let's say oil barrel prices go down by 25% and they lower gas prices by 5%. You think that's fair?

RolandDeschain wrote:DTex, online HD distribution of films costs almost nothing compared to their physical media counterparts. You don't think that if the cost of a product is reduced by 20% or 25% that most of that reduction should not be passed on to the consumer? Let's say oil barrel prices go down by 25% and they lower gas prices by 5%. You think that's fair?

There is, however, a bit of a misconception about digital media as compared to physical media. I see it very clearly in the book industry, and the same holds true for other mediums of art. There are fewer costs associated with distribution, such as storage, shipping, manufacturing, and returns. There are, however, a number of costs which remain equal for both types of product, that often get overlooked or marginalized by folks making this argument. Costs such as author/artist payment, editing, quality control, and other such costs related to the actual creation of product remain identical. And costs from marketing, reviews, publicity, etc., still remain intact. This indicates less of a drop in cost than is assumed by the buying public.

Digitalization of art also creates a sort of conundrum with value vs. cost as well. In the end, the consumer is getting the identical product - not the book, CD, DVD, etc., but the story, the music, the movie. The heart of the product is exactly the same. And in many cases, it's presented in a format which is actually better than a physical product. Now you can transport that music in bulk, anywhere you want, in your pocket. You don't have to carry around a large player and a bunch of discs. You can turn on the TV and pull up whatever movie you want, without searching through whatever library of movies you have in bookcases, storage racks, or piled into boxes under the stairs or in the garage. You can carry thousands of books with you on an airplane, and still have room for that carry-on. This implies more value for the price, and yet we expect to pay less simply because it costs less to manufacture.

I too want lower prices for digital wares, but the simple economics of it show that supply and demand, not price of production, dictate cost. Price of production indicates profitability and ability to stay in the market as a viable business.

"The ultimate number is W's, and that’s what matters in Santa Clara. As such, Jed York does not own the 49ers; Russell Wilson does." - Paul Gutierrez

RolandDeschain wrote:DTex, online HD distribution of films costs almost nothing compared to their physical media counterparts. You don't think that if the cost of a product is reduced by 20% or 25% that most of that reduction should not be passed on to the consumer? Let's say oil barrel prices go down by 25% and they lower gas prices by 5%. You think that's fair?

Sailor made a few good points about the actual "reduction" in costs.

As to your oil prices example, there are so many factors that go into the price of a gallon of gas rather than just the "barrel of oil". Taxes, distribution, storage, refining, ............. oil down 25% and gas price down 5% might be correct and fair. Of course there is public transportation, or walking/cycling, or move closer to work, choices that you can make if you feel the prices are not "fair".

Sailors point about "needs" instead of "wants" is also valid. If the price on a movie, cd, or a song are higher than you want to pay, do without. Too many options for free material is out there. Books and movies are available for "free" (taxes not withstanding) at local libraries. Last time I checked, there is free tv & radio over the airwaves. I know the selection may not be current or the widest, but if you want that, I feel you should be willing to pay for what ever the artist/musician/writer/& distribution channel asks for.

Ultimately, we are all individuals with different opinions on right/wrong and we all draw our individual lines in different places.

“A society that gets rid of all its troublemakers goes downhill.” ― Robert A. Heinlein

True, Sailor; but the fact that for years, people had to rip their own music CDs into MP3s to make them portable, and the fact that people scanned books in by hand to get digital PDF versions, and the fact that people recorded and re-encoded TV shows and movies to make them portable and convenient before these industries did what they were forced to do many years after they should have done it, has created some bitterness.

Also, while how much money you save by digital distribution versus physical distribution will vary wildly, there is no arguing that it's cheaper.

So, one should expect a 25% price reduction in crude oil to reduce the price at the pump by approximately 2/3rds of that 25%; 16% or so. Otherwise, it's simply artificial price increases to get more profit. Price gouging, if extreme enough.

DTexHawk wrote:Ultimately, we are all individuals with different opinions on right/wrong and we all draw our individual lines in different places.

...And some of us are fine with this idea, and don't push it onto others. Others, like you, try to put us in a time-out chair, pushing your perception of morals onto us. I don't tell you what you should or should not do, why do you feel the need to lecture us on your definition of stealing/pirating?

my biggest problem with piracy is that instead of just stealing it and enjoying it, many choose to share it not just with friends but with ANYONE/EVERYONE. Why? you got what you wanted can't you just be happy with that? Are you afraid of breaking the unwritten code of piracy yet willfully break the code of society?